The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Williams has been employed by the School Board for 15 years and is currently a 12-month custodian at Longwood Elementary School (School), located in Seminole County, Florida. As a 12-month custodian, Ms. Williams is allowed sick and annual leave. Ms. Williams requested leave beginning July 7, 2010, to September 29, 2010, for back surgery. On August 10, 2010, the School received a letter dated July 8, 2010, from Ms. Williams's physician, advising that Ms. Williams had undergone surgery for a spinal disorder on July 7, 2010, and would need 12 weeks to recover prior to returning to work. On October 1, 2010, Ms. Williams called the School and advised that she was not able to return to work and requested leave from September 30, 2010, through October 28, 2010. Her physician sent a letter dated September 30, 2010, to the School, advising that Ms. Williams would need an additional four weeks for recovery. By this time, Ms. Williams had exhausted all her paid leave and was on leave without pay. Ms. Williams was unable to come to the School to sign the application for leave; however, the leave was approved by the principal of the School, Virginia Fisher (Ms. Fisher), who was Ms. Williams's direct supervisor. By November 2, 2010, Ms. Williams was still unable to return to work, and her physician sent another letter to the School, advising that Ms. Williams would need an additional four weeks for recovery. Ms. Williams requested leave from November 2, 2010, to November 30, 2010. Again, Ms. Williams was unable to come to the School to sign the application for leave, but it was approved by Ms. Fisher. By December 1, 2010, Ms. Williams was still unable to return to work and requested leave from December 1, 2010, through January 3, 2011. Her physician sent a letter to the School, stating that Ms. Williams needed an additional four weeks for recovery. Ms. Williams was unable to come to the School to sign the application, and the leave request was approved by Ms. Fisher. Ms. Williams's physician sent a letter dated December 27, 2010, to the School, stating that Ms. Williams had not quite reached maximum medical improvement with respect to her recovery and that he would need to see her in four weeks for reevaluation. Ms. Williams signed and submitted an application for leave for January 4, 2011, through January 24, 2011. The leave was approved. Ms. Williams's physician submitted a Return to Work/School Certificate dated January 21, 2011, to the School, stating that Ms. Williams would be able to return to work on January 24, 2011, with the following restrictions: "light duty with no repetitive lifting over her head, lifting restriction of = 30 lbs." Ms. Williams discussed the issue of light duty with Steve Bouzianis (Mr. Bouzianis), director of Human Resources, Staffing and Operations for the School Board. She told him that she had been advised by staff at the School that she needed to come back to work or submit a request for additional leave. Mr. Bouzianis informed her that she could not do the custodial job with the restrictions set by her physician. Ms. Williams was advised to submit a request for leave and was told that it would be approved. By February 18, 2011, Ms. Williams had not submitted a request for leave or submitted a letter from her physician stating that she needed to be absent from work due to an illness. By letter dated February 18, 2011, Ms. Fisher enclosed a leave request form and directed Ms. Williams to complete the form and return it to her, along with a physician's statement substantiating Ms. Williams's need for her absences no later than February 23, 2011. Ms. Fisher further advised that, if Ms. Williams could not obtain a physician's statement, Ms. Fisher would approve the leave for the remainder of the year as personal leave without pay. Ms. Fisher advised in the letter of the consequences for failure to request leave and stated: Should you fail to return to me your signed request for leave form and the supporting physician's statement (if applicable) by the date identified above [February 23, 2011], you will be considered as absent from duty without approved leave, and in violation of adopted School Board policy. In that event, the Superintendent of Schools will recommend to the School Board that you be suspended from your duties and further that your employment with the School Board of Seminole County, Florida[,] be terminated. The School received a letter dated February 22, 2011, from Ms. Williams's physician, who stated that Ms. Williams could return to work on January 24, 2011, with the same restrictions previously listed on the Return to Work/School Certificate. On February 23, 2011, Cynthia Frye (Ms. Frye), who is Ms. Fisher's assistant, attempted to call Ms. Williams at her sister's telephone number, which is the number that Ms. Williams had given the School to contact in case of an emergency. At the time, Ms. Williams was living with her sister and staying some of the time with her son. Ms. Frye called at 2:37 p.m., and got no answer, and called again at 3:15 p.m., at which time she spoke to Ms. Williams's sister. Ms. Frye told the sister that it was important that Ms. Williams call Ms. Frye. Ms. Williams had not called Ms. Frye by the morning of February 24, 2011. Ms. Frye attempted to call Ms. Williams twice during the morning of February 24, 2011, and three times during the afternoon. On the last call, she left a message with Ms. Williams's sister that it was imperative that Ms. Williams call Ms. Frye that night or Ms. Frye could not help Ms. Williams. By March 4, 2011, the School still had not heard from Ms. Williams. Ms. Fisher sent Ms. Williams a letter dated March 4, 2011, stating that, because Ms. Williams had not contacted the School to request leave, Ms. Williams's absences since January 25, 2011, were considered as absences from duty without approved leave. Ms. Fisher advised Ms. Williams that, based on Ms. Williams's third and continuing absences, Ms. Fisher would recommend to the superintendent of schools that Ms. Williams's employment with the Seminole County Public Schools be terminated. When questioned at the final hearing concerning her reasoning for not requesting leave, Ms. Williams indicated that she wanted to work, but the School would not let her come back to work with light duty restrictions. She contacted her attorney and, based on his advice, did not request leave. Ms. Williams's employment is governed by the Official Agreement between the Non-Instructional Personnel of Seminole County Board of Public Instruction Association, Inc., and the School Board (Agreement). Article VII of the Agreement provides: Section 4. * * * B. A regular employee who has been hired for four (4) or more years may only be terminated for just cause except as otherwise provided in A. above. * * * Section 5. A. Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years (without a break in service) shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following provided that just cause is present: Violation of School Board Policy Violation of work rules Insubordination--Refusal to follow a proper directive, order, or assignment from a supervisor While on duty, the possession and/or the use of intoxicating beverages or controlled substances after reporting for work and until after the employees leaves the work site after the equipment, if applicable, has been checked in Endangering the health, safety or welfare of any student or employee of the District The conviction of a felony in the State of Florida or notice of conviction of a substantially parallel offense in another jurisdiction An act committed while off duty, which because of its publication through the media or otherwise adversely affects the employee's performance or duties, or disrupts the operations of the District, its schools, or other work/cost centers Excessive tardiness Damage to School Board property Improper use of sick leave Failure to perform assigned duties Other infractions, as set forth from time to time in writing and disseminated by the Superintendent or designee. * * * Section 11. Absence Without Leave Employees will be considered absent without leave if they fail to notify their principal, appropriate director or supervisor that they will be absent from duty and the reason for such absence. Absence without leave is a breach of contract and may be grounds for immediate dismissal. * * * Section 15. Employees shall report absences and the reason for such absences prior to the start of their duty day in accordance with practices established at each cost center. An employee who has been determined to have been AWOL shall be subject to the following progressive discipline procedures: 1st Offense--Written reprimand and one day suspension without pay. 2nd Offense--Five day suspension without pay. 3rd Offense--Recommendation for termination. Each day that an employee is AWOL shall be considered a separate offense. However, any documentation of offenses in this section shall be maintained in the employee's personnel file.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Ms. Williams's employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the actions set forth in the Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office, dated December 18, 2013, and if so, whether these actions constitute just cause for suspension.
Findings Of Fact The Walton County School Board (School Board) is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District of Walton County, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Harriet Hurley was a teacher at Walton Middle School. Ms. Hurley had earlier been a teacher in Georgia for eight years, had been employed in Walton County Schools in 1984 for a period of three years, and taught in Okaloosa County Schools for five years. She then returned to Walton County Schools where she has been ever since, for a career of over 30 years. In addition to her responsibilities as a teacher at Walton Middle School, Ms. Hurley assists in scheduling parent- teacher conferences for students at Walton Middle School. Ms. Hurley’s responsibilities in scheduling conferences are limited to a coordination function. She is not responsible for addressing the substance of the issues to be addressed in the conferences or becoming involved in attempting to resolve them. Principal Hope never asked Ms. Hurley to assume a role as a guidance counselor. Ms. Hurley is employed by the School Board. As a member of the School Board’s instructional staff, Ms. Hurley’s employment is subject to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2013), which provides that her employment will not be suspended or terminated except for “just cause.” As a teacher, Ms. Hurley is required to abide by all Florida Statutes which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and the Policies and Procedures of the School Board of Walton County, Florida. Ms. Hurley is not the legal guardian of her granddaughter, B.C., who is a student at Walton Middle School. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Hurley’s granddaughter, B.C., approached her in the adult dining area about a group math assignment that was upsetting her. B.C. told Ms. Hurley that she had been told by her sixth-grade math teacher, Ms. Black, that her “high grade was gone” because of the failure of her group to complete a group math assignment. B.C. told Ms. Hurley that she blamed S.A., another student in her group, for their failure to complete the work. Ms. Hurley immediately left the adult dining area with her lunch only partially eaten and went with B.C. back to Ms. Black’s classroom. B.C. had been released for lunch a few minutes before the other students because she was an A/B Honor Roll student, so the other students were still in the classroom when Ms. Hurley arrived there. When Ms. Hurley and B.C. arrived at the classroom, the students were packing up their personal items in preparation for their release for lunch. Ms. Black testified in part: At that time, I think it was because the students leave five minutes early, A/B honor roll students. I don’t really want to go ahead and teach them anything, because they’re missing that opportunity to learn. At that time I get them to pack up and get their things together to leave for lunch. There was a high level of noise in the classroom. Ms. Black, in her first year as a teacher, was at her desk trying to help some students who did not understand something, and was in a verbal altercation with S.A., who was walking away from her. On November 20, 2013, S.A. was not a student in one of Ms. Hurley’s classes. Ms. Hurley addressed S.A., telling him that he should not talk to his teacher that way. Ms. Hurley told S.A. to “come here to me.” She was upset with S.A. and told him that he needed to stop playing around. In a loud and forceful tone of voice, she told him that he was not going to be the cause of a “straight A” student getting a bad grade and that he needed to concentrate on his schoolwork. She told him that she knew his mother, who worked at a KFC-Taco Bell restaurant in Miramar Beach, and that she would talk to his mother if necessary. S.A. denied that his mother worked at KFC, and Ms. Hurley restated that she knew that his mother did. The other students in the class heard Ms. Hurley’s disparagement and public discipline of S.A. The bell rang and Ms. Hurley and the students began to leave the classroom. S.A. was embarrassed and upset by the incident. Due to the fact that the students were already packing up their things to leave, and because Ms. Black had been in a verbal altercation with S.A., the actions of Ms. Hurley in Ms. Black’s class did not disrupt the students’ learning environment. Ms. Hurley’s actions were unnecessary. She might have comforted B.C., and encouraged B.C. and her parents to pursue the issue with Ms. Black. S.A. was not one of Ms. Hurley’s students and at the time she decided to go to Ms. Black’s class Ms. Hurley had not directly witnessed any behavior by S.A. that called for immediate correction. Even had it been appropriate for Respondent herself to take action based upon her granddaughter’s information, there was no emergency which required that Ms. Hurley intrude upon a colleague’s class and loudly berate S.A. in front of other students. She used her institutional privileges as a teacher to gain access to Ms. Black’s classroom in order to assist her granddaughter. As Ms. Black was leaving her classroom, she saw that S.A. was reluctantly moving toward the door and she noticed he was crying. She attempted to comfort him. Ms. Black then reported the incident to Mr. Jason Campbell, Assistant Principal, who was in the student lunch room. A few minutes later, S.A. also approached Mr. Campbell to report his version of the incident. Ms. Hurley returned to her lunch in the adult dining room. When Ms. Black came in to the dining room later, Ms. Hurley apologized to her for coming into her classroom. That evening, Ms. Hurley drove to Miramar Beach and went to dinner at the fast food restaurant where she knew Ms. A. worked. Ms. Hurley was one of Ms. A’s teachers when Ms. A. had been in the seventh grade, and the two were casual acquaintances. Ms. Hurley told Ms. A. what had happened that morning with S.A. and B.C. in their math group. Ms. Hurley told Ms. A. that she had “kind of stepped out and went into grandma mode” and had “gotten onto” (disciplined) S.A. Ms. Hurley relayed that she had told S.A. that she knew his mother and that if he did not improve his conduct, she was going to let his mother know about his behavior. During the course of the conversation, Ms. A. relayed that she was concerned about an incident involving a damaged globe from Mr. Price’s classroom, which was S.A.’s SPEAR classroom (“home room”). The following day, on November 21, 2013, Ms. Hurley removed S.A. from his first-period classroom. Neither Principal Hope nor Vice Principal Campbell authorized Ms. Hurley to remove S.A. from his first-period classroom on November 21, 2013. On November 21, 2013, Ms. Hurley contacted S.A.’s mother on the telephone on her own initiative and without the authority of Principal Hope or Vice Principal Campbell. Ms. Hurley called Ms. A. on the telephone with S.A. present. Ms. Hurley and Ms. A. talked about the incident involving S.A. and the damaged globe from Mr. Price’s classroom. The telephone conversation had barely begun when Mr. Hope, upon learning that Ms. Hurley had gone to S.A.’s classroom and removed him from class, came into Ms. Hurley’s room and took S.A. back to Mr. Hope’s office. While the School Board alleged that Ms. Hurley and Ms. A. discussed the incident that happened in Ms. Black’s classroom the day before, this was not shown by the evidence. The allegation that Ms. Hurley was misusing her institutional privileges by engaging in the phone call may be correct, for Ms. Hurley was not authorized to discuss the substance of parent/teacher conferences, but was instead limited to scheduling responsibilities. The evidence did not show that the phone conversation was conducted for personal gain or advantage to Ms. Hurley, however. The School Board’s further argument that Ms. Hurley’s actions on November 21, 2013, reduced the ability of Principal Hope to efficiently perform his duties is also rejected. Assuming that Principal Hope could even be considered a “colleague” of Ms. Hurley’s, the evidence showed that he was able to efficiently “track down” S.A. with minimal effort. To the extent that Ms. Hurley’s actions on November 21, 2013, exceeded her “job description,” they could be corrected with a simple directive or memorandum, and in the absence of evidence that her actions were taken for her personal gain, they are not a just cause for discipline. Statements were taken from several students in Ms. Black’s math class regarding the incident on November 20th, which vary in detail, but taken as a whole corroborate the findings of fact above regarding the incident on November 20, 2013. No statement was taken from B.C., and neither party called B.C. as a witness at hearing. On December 2, 2013, Ms. Hurley met with Walton Middle School administration to discuss the events of November 20 and November 21, 2013. On December 17, 2013, Principal Tripp Hope issued a letter of reprimand advising Respondent that he would be recommending a 10-day suspension without pay to the Superintendent. On December 18, 2013, the Superintendent notified Respondent of her intention to recommend a 10-day suspension without pay. A Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office, dated December 18, 2013, notified Respondent of the Petitioner’s intent to suspend her employment for 10 days without pay. (As stipulated by the parties.) Although the Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office did not explicitly identify all rules that Ms. Hurley was charged with violating, the allegations of more specific rule violations were included in the Letter of Reprimand which was attached to the charge. Ms. Hurley was not prejudiced or hindered in the preparation of her defense by any lack of specificity in the charging documents. Ms. Hurley is substantially affected by the intended action of the School Board to suspend her employment without pay for ten days. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley failed to “value” the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, or the nurture of democratic citizenship. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley did not strive for professional growth or did not “seek” to exercise the best professional judgment or integrity. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley did not “strive” to achieve or sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. The evidence showed that by entering S.A.’s classroom and raising her voice in anger towards him in the presence of other students, Ms. Hurley failed to make reasonable effort to protect S.A. from conditions harmful to his learning or to his mental health. The evidence showed that any required discipline of S.A. should not have been administered by Ms. Hurley and so her actions were unnecessary. Her actions, which reduced S.A. to tears, exposed him to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. The evidence showed that in entering another teacher’s classroom to assist her granddaughter by disciplining S.A. when he was not even one of her students, Ms. Hurley used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley lacked integrity, high ideals, or human understanding or that she failed to “maintain or promote” those qualities. The evidence did not show that in entering Ms. Black’s classroom during the final minutes of the class, when the students were already packing up their things and preparing to go to lunch, Ms. Hurley engaged in behavior that disrupted the students’ learning environment. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley engaged in behavior that reduced her ability or her colleague’s ability to effectively perform duties. One might speculate as to whether Ms. Black’s ability to maintain control over her class in the future was undermined by Ms. Hurley’s aggressive intrusion, but Ms. Black did not testify that her ability to effectively perform was reduced and this was not otherwise shown. There was similarly no evidence offered to indicate that Ms. Hurley’s own effectiveness was reduced. Her actions were not taken in her own classroom, there was no evidence that she had any of Ms. Black’s students in her classes, or that her own students or the student body generally was even aware of her actions. The actions of Ms. Hurley on November 20, 2013, constitute misconduct in office. Her actions are just cause for suspension of her employment without pay. The School Board witnesses conceded that Ms. Hurley has never received “formal” counseling, and presented no documentary evidence that she had been counseled even informally. The School Board did present credible testimony from Principal Hope and Assistant Principal Campbell that Ms. Hurley had been informally counseled regarding raising her voice with students and for communication with her peers. The actions of Ms. Hurley on November 20, 2013, were not so serious as to justify a ten-day suspension, but do warrant suspension without pay for three calendar days.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida (including, among others, Ludlam Elementary School (Ludlam)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. Respondent has approximately 30 years of teaching experience, and has been a classroom teacher for the School Board since December 1999. As a School Board employee, she has not been the subject of any disciplinary action aside from the 30-workday suspension that is being contested in the instant case. Respondent is currently co-teaching a kindergarten class at Ludlam, the only school at which she has taught during her employment with the School Board. For the eleven years she has been at Ludlam, Respondent has been a kindergarten teacher exclusively, except for the 2009-2010 school year, when she taught second grade. Among the second graders in her class that school year were A. H., A. P., and J. M.3 Dr. Georgette Menocal is now, and was during the 2009- 2010 school year, the principal of Ludlam. At a Ludlam faculty meeting, attended by Respondent, that was held at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, Dr. Menocal gave a PowerPoint presentation in which she reviewed, for those in attendance, key provisions of Ludlam's 2009-2010 Faculty/Staff Handbook (Handbook), including the following excerpt relating to "Classroom Management Procedures": CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES Teachers should make every effort to handle routine classroom discipline problems by conferring with the student, contacting parents, and referring the student to the counselor. If a serious violation of school rules has occurred, a "Student Case Management Referral Form" should be completed and forwarded to the administration. A response will be forthcoming. * * * It is the teacher's responsibility to manage his/her class and to follow the procedures outlined in the Code of Student Conduct. All level 1 behaviors are to be addressed by the teacher. Most level 2 behaviors can be addressed by the teacher and/or counselor. Level 3 (and above) behaviors require a referral to an administrator. Each student referral must be made on a Student Case Management (SCM) referral form. The disciplinary policies of the school should be administered on a consistent basis throughout the school. The CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT should be reviewed with students at the beginning of each school year. NEVER - Use corporal punishment of any kind (hitting, tapping or tying students, having students stand for long periods of time, etc.)[4] The School Board's Code of Student Conduct-Elementary (Code) (which Ludlam teachers were directed by the Handbook to "follow") provided, among other things, that "Level 3 . . . behaviors" included "Fighting (serious)" and that "Fighting (serious)": Occurs when two or more students engage in physical force or violence against each other and they become so enraged that they do not stop when given a verbal command to do so, OR physical restraint is required, AND/OR someone is injured to an extent that requires immediate first aid or medical attention. Any serious fighting incident that causes injury or requires medical attention would result in a suspension. If the principal or designee determines that one student or a group of students attacked someone who did not fight back, the aggressors should receive punishment for battery, aggravated battery, and/or bullying, depending on the facts, and will likely be arrested. Otherwise, administrators will report all other incidents involving mutual participation as Fighting (Serious) without regard to who was the original aggressor. On February 25, 2010, during a mathematics lesson Respondent was teaching, two female students in her class, A. H. and A. P., were involved in an altercation in the back of the classroom, during which A. H. hit A. P. with a book. Respondent intervened and separated the two girls by physically restraining A. H., who struggled to escape Respondent's grasp. As she was holding A. H., Respondent instructed A. P. to hit A. H. back. A. P. did as she was told, striking A. H.5 with a book.6 The incident (Incident), which lasted approximately a minute, was witnessed by J. M., who was in her seat and had turned around to observe the fracas.7 Notwithstanding that she had physically restrained A. H., Respondent did not report the Incident to the school administration (via submission of a completed Student Case Management referral form, as required by the Handbook, or through any other means).8 Following the Incident, the students in Respondent's class left her classroom and went to their Spanish class. Ludlam's assistant principal was subsequently called to the Spanish class. She removed A. H. and A. P. from the class and brought them to Dr. Menocal's office, where Dr. Menocal spoke to them separately. Both A. H. and A. P. told Dr. Menocal about their scuffle earlier that day in Respondent's classroom and how, during this tussle, Respondent had directed A. P. to hit A. H. while A. H. was being held by Respondent. A. H. and A. P. gave Dr. Menocal, at Dr. Menocal's request, the names of three other students who may have witnessed the Incident. The three students9 were brought, separately, to Dr. Menocal's office and questioned by her. Each of the three students confirmed what A. H. and A. P. had told Dr. Menocal. Dr. Menocal asked A. H., A. P., and two of the three other students to whom she had spoken to each write a statement in their own words describing what had happened in Respondent's classroom earlier that day.10 They wrote their statements, separately, in Dr. Menocal's presence. In her written statement, A. H. stated, in pertinent part, "Ms. Grey hold me and then Ms. Grey told her [A. P.] to hit me and then she hit me on my back . . . ." A. P. and the two other children each wrote that Respondent had "let" A. P. "hit" A. H., but they did not specifically state in their written statements that Respondent had told A. P. to strike A. H. After receiving these written statements from the students, Dr. Menocal contacted the School Board police and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to report what the students had related to her about the Incident. That same day, February 25, 2010, a School Board police officer, Officer San Antonio, was dispatched to Ludlam. Officer San Antonio first spoke with Dr. Menocal and then with various students and Respondent. The following morning, at around 9:00 a.m., Respondent's second grade class put on a performance in the school cafeteria as part of a black history month event attended by parents (Performance). Following the Performance, Respondent invited the parents of her students to follow her and the class back to her classroom so that she could have a brief meeting with them (Post-Performance Meeting). Respondent began the meeting by praising the students' Performance. This praise, however, was short-lived, as Respondent started to complain to the parents about the students' "misbehaving" and "acting up" in class. As an example, she cited the altercation the day before between A. H. and A. P. (without identifying them by name). Respondent told the parents that "two little girls" had "got[en] into a fight" and that she was being accused of and investigated by the police for having "held one of them and [having] told the other girl to hit [the girl being held]." Respondent then said, "And I wouldn't do that" (knowing full well that, in fact, she had done "that"), after which she asked her students (including A. H. and A. P.) who were present in the room with the parents, "Did Mrs. Grey do that?" The students responded, in unison, "No, no."11 Respondent informed the parents that, because she "gets in trouble" when she "gets involved," she no longer would hesitate, when a student misbehaved, to prepare and submit to the principal's office a written referral that would follow the misbehaving student "all the way through high school." Later that morning (on February 26, 2010), at approximately 11:15 a.m., a DCFS child protective investigator, Donald Machacon, arrived at Ludlam to investigate the Incident (which Dr. Menocal had reported to DCFS the day before). After first speaking with Dr. Menocal, Mr. Machacon spoke with A. H., A. P., and three other students in Respondent's class.12 The last person Mr. Machacon interviewed at the school that day was Respondent. During her interview with Mr. Machacon on February 26, 2010, A. P. stated that, although at the time of the Incident she had thought she had heard Respondent instruct her to hit A. H., she must not have heard correctly because Respondent, earlier on February 26th, had spoken to her about the matter and denied ever having had given her such an instruction.13 A. P. attributed her having had misunderstood Respondent to Respondent's having had had a "hoarse voice" the day of the Incident. None of the other children Mr. Machacon interviewed at the school on February 26, 2010, including A. H., claimed to have any recollection of Respondent's ever having had told A. P. to hit A. H. (although each of them did tell Mr. Machacon that A. P. had hit A. H. while A. H. was being held by Respondent). Respondent, in her interview, indicated that she had held A. H. in order to "break up a fight," but she denied having had told A. P. to hit A. H. during the altercation. She also denied having had spoken about the Incident earlier that day (February 26, 2010) with A. H. and A. P. She did acknowledge, however, that she had referenced the Incident in a talk she had had with a group of parents shortly after the Performance that morning. She further acknowledged that, the day before (February 25, 2010), she had been questioned about the Incident by Officer San Antonio, who was at the school investigating the matter. By letter dated February 26, 2010, and received by Respondent on March 1, 2010, Dr. Menocal formally informed Respondent, in writing, that "[a]n investigation [was] being conducted" of a complaint made by an unnamed "juvenile" complainant alleging that Respondent had "held" her "so that another student could hit her." Among the parents who had attended the Post- Performance Meeting on February 26, 2010, was M. M., J. M.'s mother. M. M. left the meeting concerned about the safety of her daughter in Respondent's classroom given what Respondent had told the parents, particularly about the fight between the "two little girls" that the police had been called to the school to investigate.14 Moreover, M. M. thought that it was inappropriate for Respondent to have discussed the matter at the meeting. The following week, M. M. made arrangements to meet with Dr. Menocal so that she could air her grievances about Respondent. (These grievances were not only about what had occurred at the Post- Performance Meeting. They also concerned "classroom management issues.") Sometime before this meeting between M. M. and Dr. Menocal took place, M. M. learned more about the Incident from J. M. during a discussion the two had following a physical altercation between J. M. and J. M.'s sister. M. M. had initiated the discussion by asking whether J. M. believed that J. M.'s sister had deserved to be hit by J. M., a question to which J. M. responded in the affirmative. When M. M. inquired as to why J. M. felt this way, J. M. answered, "Well, it's like in Mrs. Grey's class, when you get hit, you hit back." In response to her mother's request that she elaborate, J. M. told M. M. about the Incident and how, after A. H. had hit A. P., Respondent had grabbed ahold of A. H., told A. P. to hit A. H. back,15 and then announced to the class, "This is what happens in Mrs. Grey's class, when you hit; you get hit back." M. M. had her meeting with Dr. Menocal approximately a week after the Incident. During her audience with Dr. Menocal, M. M. raised a number of complaints that she had about Respondent. She talked about, among other things, the comments and remarks Respondent had made to the parents and students in attendance at the Post-Performance Meeting, including those relating to the Incident and its aftermath. On March 8, 2010, Respondent was temporarily reassigned, "until further notice," from Ludlam to the School Board's Region III Office, where she engaged in "professional development" activities. By letter dated May 18, 2010, which she received on May 19, 2010, Respondent was advised that the School Board police had completed its investigation of the Incident and found probable cause to believe that she had violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21. The letter further advised Respondent of her right "to file a written exception" with the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS).16 Respondent submitted to OPS her "written exception," by letter dated May 25, 2010. She subsequently sent to OPS a "[r]evised [v]ersion" of this letter, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Pursuant to your letter dated May 18, 2010, informing me of the outcome of your investigation (SPAR #R-09002), I wish to exercise my right to provide a written exception to your findings. I take exception to your findings of probable cause to the violation because no such violation occurred. My intervention was simply to stop the aggressing child from hitting the other child and preventing a fight, possibly leading to injuries, between the two children. Below please find specific items with which I take issue . . . . * * * Det. Torrens also states that two students who were interviewed as witnesses told him exactly the same thing which, significantly, was not that I told one child to hit the other as the information from the two combatants indicate. These children also provided him with previously written statements. I would like to see the original documents; to know who took the statements and who was present. I would also like the children to be interviewed on tape as to the veracity of the statements, being cognizant of the fact that these are eight year olds who often repeat what they hear or are told.[17] I did not tell the one child to hit the other, nor did I hold one child so that the other could hit her. I was merely holding back the very aggressive child, who was struggling with me to get loose so that she could attack the other child. It was at this time that the other child, who was free, hit the child I was holding. There were seventeen children in the class at the time I separated the two girls. All seventeen children saw what happened and they all heard what happened. I would like all seventeen children to be separately interviewed on tape. * * * I also wish to clarify the issue of the administrative letter and the suggestion that I discussed the investigation with the parents. This incident occurred on Thursday, February 25th 2010. Officer San Antonio asked me what happened in my classroom on the very same Thursday that it occurred, and I told her that I saw one child crying and I asked her what was the matter. She told me that the other child had hit her, so I separated them. The aggressing child then got angry and wanted to fight, so I held on to her, when the other child came over and tapped her on the back. The Black History function was held on the following Friday (2/26/10). I had no discussions with any parents about the incident. In fact I was not aware that there was an investigation until Mr. Machacon came to the school the afternoon of that same Friday, and told me there were these allegations against me. I certainly could not discuss an investigation that I did not know about.[18] Furthermore, Dr. Menocal did not give me the administrative letter until the following Monday afternoon (3/1/10) and I got assigned to the region the following Monday (3/8/10), eleven days after the incident. I hope this letter helps to provide additional information which will aid in a more comprehensive fact gathering process to enable a fair and just review, with the concomitant overturn of the probable cause findings. These charges I take very seriously as I have dedicated my entire adult life (over thirty years) to the vocation of educating young children without a single incident. I have assiduously guarded the propriety of this noble profession and will resist any attempt to impugn my integrity or besmirch my character. On June 2, 2010, OPS held a conference-for-the-record, at which Respondent had an opportunity to verbally respond to the probable cause finding made by the School Board police. By letter dated July 21, 2010, Assistant Superintendent Rojas advised Respondent that OPS had made a "recommendation that [she] be suspended without pay 30 workdays via an agenda item [that would] be presented to [the School Board] at the meeting scheduled for September 7, 2010." In a subsequent letter, dated August 26, 2010, Assistant Superintendent Rojas informed Respondent that the Superintendent would be recommending to the School Board, at its scheduled September 7, 2010, meeting, that Respondent receive a 30-workday suspension. The School Board followed the Superintendent's recommendation and suspended Respondent without pay from September 8, 2010, through October 19, 2010. Furthermore, it directed Respondent to report to duty at Ludlam on October 20, 2010. Respondent has served her suspension. By letter dated September 8, 2010, Respondent "request[ed] a hearing to be held before an administrative law judge" to contest her suspension. The matter was thereafter referred to DOAH. A. P.'s and A. H.'s depositions were taken in anticipation of the hearing. At her deposition, A. P. declined to answer any questions. A. H. was deposed on December 6, 2010. When asked about the Incident, she stated that she had been hit by A. P. while being held by Respondent. It was her testimony that Respondent was simply "trying [to] keep [her and A. P.] apart," and that Respondent did not tell A. P. to hit her, an assertion that was in direct conflict with what A. H. had related to Dr. Menocal the day of the Incident, when the matter was fresh in A. H.'s mind and she had not yet been exposed to the remarks that Respondent would make at the Post-Performance Meeting.19 A. H. further testified during her deposition that, after the altercation, Respondent "called the office and the office came."20
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board issue a final order upholding Respondent's 30-workday suspension for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2011.
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent's employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the authorized entity charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor at Crestview Elementary School in the Miami-Dade County School District.1/ Respondent's employment is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). Pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3.D of the UTD contract, Respondent may be discharged only for "just cause," which includes, but is not limited to, "misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude." 2009-2010 School Year During the 2009-2010 academic year, Respondent was assigned to Crestview Elementary School ("Crestview") as its school security monitor. At the beginning of the year, Melissa Mesa, Crestview's principal at that time, provided Respondent with a schedule that detailed her responsibilities and duties as a monitor. In particular, Ms. Mesa advised Respondent that she was required to report to work at 7:30 a.m. and ensure that students unloaded from the buses safely. Respondent was further informed that she was required, among other tasks, to watch the students in the cafeteria during breakfast and lunch, direct visitors to the front office, patrol the hallways, and ensure that Crestview's gates were locked. Finally, Respondent was clearly instructed that her workday did not end until 3:30 p.m. Almost immediately, Respondent began to exhibit a pattern of excessive absenteeism. Specifically, during her first month of work, Respondent was absent three times. Over the next two months (October and November), Respondent was absent without authorization on eight occasions. In response to these repeated absences, Ms. Mesa provided an "Absence from Worksite Directive" to Respondent on December 3, 2009. In the directive, Ms. Mesa informed Respondent, in relevant part, that "[a]ttendance and punctuality are essential functions of [the] job . . . . [and that Respondent's] absence from duties adversely impacts the educational / work environment, particularly in effective operation of [the] worksite." The directive further provided that failure to be "in regular attendance and on time" would be considered insubordination and a violation of professional responsibilities. Notwithstanding the December 3, 2009, directive, Respondent failed to report for work——without authorization——on: December 17, 2009; January 11, 12, and 19, 2010; and February 11, 12, and 16, 2010. On February 19, 2010, a conference for the record was held with Respondent to discuss her repeated, unexcused absences. Three days later, Respondent was provided with a summary of the conference for the record, as well as a written reprimand from Ms. Mesa. Despite the February 19, 2010, meeting and the issuance of a reprimand, Respondent missed an additional three days of work, without authorization, over the next three months. In all, Respondent accumulated in excess of 30 absences (18 of which were unexcused) during the 2009-2010 school year, which adversely affected Crestview's operations. In particular, Ms. Burch-Oliver, an assistant principal at Crestview, was often required to assume Respondent's duties on the days Respondent failed to report for work. 2010-2011 School Year On August 20, 2010, Sabrina Montilla, Crestview's new principal, met with Respondent and explained her schedule and duties——that were identical to Respondent's responsibilities during the previous year——as a security monitor for 2010-2011. Notwithstanding the August meeting, Respondent was absent a total of nine times (three of which were unauthorized) between September 8, 2010, and December 8, 2010. During that same span, Respondent left early three times and was tardy on 12 occasions. As a result, a conference for the record was held on December 14, 2010, to discuss Respondent's attendance and her noncompliance with worksite directives. Ms. Montilla issued a written reprimand to Respondent on the following day. Nevertheless, between December 14, 2010, and April 11, 2011, Respondent was tardy 12 more times, often by substantial amounts of time (on three occasions, Respondent was at least 90 minutes late). In addition, Respondent missed two and one-half days of work without authorization: a half day on March 25 and full days on January 31 and April 6. A conference for the record was scheduled for April 22, 2011, to discuss, once again, Respondent's attendance issues. Respondent failed to appear, however, and was issued a reprimand shortly thereafter. Regrettably, Respondent's noncompliance with her work schedule continued. Specifically, Respondent was tardy on May 2, 9, 12, and 18, 2011, left work early on May 11, 2011, and was absent without authorization on May 3, 12, and 19, 2011 (absent a full day on May 3, and half days on the other dates). Subsequently, on May 24, 2011, a conference for the record was held with Respondent at Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards. During the conference, Respondent was provided with, but declined, an opportunity to respond to the allegations of gross insubordination, noncompliance with professional responsibilities, and violations several School Board Rules. On August 23, 2011, Respondent was informed that the Superintendent of Schools would make a recommendation at the September 7, 2011, School Board meeting that she be dismissed from her employment as a security monitor. Respondent's Final Hearing Testimony During the final hearing in this cause, Respondent attributed her failure to adhere to Crestview's schedule during the 2009-2010 school year to the fact that she was pregnant with her third child——she gave birth on June 13, 2010——and frequently suffered from morning sickness. Respondent further testified that as a single parent with two other children (ages five and eight), she was responsible for dropping her middle child off at Charles Drew Elementary School——located some distance from Crestview——at the same time that she was scheduled to report for work. While Respondent indicates that, "in the beginning," she was paying "someone" to take her child to work, the person she hired would often leave her in the lurch. However, Respondent failed to explain why she was unwilling or unable to find a more reliable individual to take her child to school. With respect to the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent testified that her attendance problems continued due to her newborn's medical issues———asthma and heart murmurs——and the need to transport her baby to daycare. Although Respondent concedes that School District provided her with information about Family Medical Leave Act, Respondent admits that she made no effort to secure medical leave to be with her son. Finally, Petitioner testified that her childcare issues have been solved by her use of a daycare facility near Crestview and the transfer of her daughter to Crestview from Charles Drew Elementary. As a result, Petitioner believes that should her employment be reinstated, she would now be able to comply with the attendance requirements of her position. While the undersigned credits the portions of Respondent's testimony discussed above, which no doubt reveal that she was dealing with challenging issues as a single parent, the fact remains that Respondent failed——on repeated occasions—— to reconcile the tension between her family responsibilities and the demands of her employment. Although Respondent made a decision that many parents would in her situation (to prioritize family over her job duties), the fact remains that she made a deliberate, knowing choice to be absent and tardy on numerous occasions during two different school years. Ultimate Findings The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent is guilty of failing to behave in such a manner that reflects credit upon herself and the school system. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent is guilty of violating the School Board's Code of Ethics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of Counts I, II, and III of the Notice of Specific Charges. It is further recommended that the final order terminate Respondent's employment, or, in the alternative, impose a penalty other than Respondent's dismissal. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2012.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Kenneth Ingber has been employed by Petitioner and assigned under a continuing contract to West Little River Elementary School. During Respondent's 23 years of employment by Petitioner, he resigned/retired twice. He was rehired by Petitioner after each resignation, the last rehiring taking place for the 1985/86 school year. His then-principal, Glenda Harris, hired him with the knowledge that he was an admitted recovering alcoholic. He told her that he was under control. She told him that she would give him a chance but that he would have to meet the expectations that all teachers have to meet. From the 1985/86 school year through the 1990/91 school year, Harris rated Respondent acceptable on his annual evaluations; however, during the 1989/90 school year, Respondent had an attendance problem when he began drinking again. Harris tried to get Respondent to obtain help, but he felt he could do it on his own. He deteriorated during that year but improved during the 1990/91 school year. During the time that Harris supervised Respondent, she had a problem with his not having lesson plans. He felt that he did not need them. For the 1991/92 school year, Respondent came under the supervision of Principal Lillian Coplin. Coplin was never advised of Respondent's alcoholism. On January 29, 1992, Respondent left school early without permission. He also failed to attend a Global Awareness Workshop scheduled for that day. Coplin discussed these failures with him on January 30, 1992. On January 31, 1992, Respondent arrived at work late and left early. The official working hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 3:20 p.m., but Respondent only worked from 9:47 a.m. to 2:50 p.m. On February 7, 1992, Coplin directed Respondent to observe the working hours set by the collective bargaining agreement between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (Labor Contract). On February 27 and March 2, 1992, Respondent failed to have lesson plans. On February 27, 1992, Assistant Principal Edith Norniella observed Respondent smoking outside of his classroom, but within view of his students. Prior to that date, Norniella had observed him smoking on school grounds on August 30, 1991, November 14, 1991 and February 18, 1992. On each of these occasions, she told him not to smoke on school grounds. Coplin had also told him several times not to smoke on school grounds. On March 3, 1992, Coplin directed Respondent to adhere to Petitioner's non-smoking rule. Norniella saw him smoking on school grounds at least two more times after that. On March 3, 1992, Coplin also directed Respondent to develop lesson plans according to the Labor Contract. On March 27, 1992, all teachers were given a site directive to turn in parent logs, gradebooks, and daily schedules before leaving for spring-break on April 3, 1992. On April 3, 1992, Respondent reported to work at 9:25 a.m. in spite of the directive given on February 7, 1992. On that same date, Respondent also failed to comply with the directive to turn in parent logs, gradebooks, and daily schedules. Moreover, by April 22, 1992, he still had not complied with that directive. On April 22, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to discuss his attendance problems and other failures to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and administrative directives. During the conference, he stated that he lost the gradebook but that the principal would not like it anyway. He also admitted that he did not maintain a parent log. Respondent was warned that any further violation of directives would be considered gross insubordination. He was also issued a written reprimand and directed to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and site directives. He was advised of the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP), a program which offers assistance to employees in overcoming personal problems that may be affecting their work. Respondent declined the assistance and treated the matter as a joke by posting the EAP referral on his classroom door. On May 27, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Norniella, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. He did not have lesson plans, student work folders with tests, or a gradebook. It was impossible to assess his students' progress. Respondent was given a prescription to help him correct his deficiencies. Prescriptions are activities which the employee is directed to complete. He was directed to write detailed lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella weekly. He was to prepare two teacher-made tests and submit those to Norniella for review. He was also to complete some activities concerning assessment techniques from the TADS prescription manual. His prescription deadline was June 16, 1992. On June 2, 1992, Respondent was wearing a "pocket-knife" on his belt. Both Coplin and Norniella considered the pocket-knife to be a weapon in violation of the School Board rule because, although Respondent did not physically threaten anyone with the knife, the wearing of such a knife was intimidating to students and to Coplin. The matter had come to Coplin's attention through a complaint from the parent of a student. In addition, both administrators believed that wearing a knife set a bad example for the students and did not reflect credit upon Respondent and the school system. On June 3, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held to address the knife incident. Respondent was issued a written reprimand and directed to cease and desist from bringing the pocket-knife to school. He was further advised that any re-occurrence of that infraction would result in additional disciplinary action. On June 5, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held to address Respondent's performance and his future employment status. During the conference, he admitted to not having had a written lesson plan during the May 27 observation. He was told of the Labor Contract provision which requires weekly lesson plans reflecting objectives, activities, homework, and a way of monitoring students' progress. He was also warned that if he did not complete the prescription from that observation, he would be placed on prescription for professional responsibilities and given an unacceptable annual evaluation. On June 19, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent. He had failed to correct his deficiencies and had failed to complete his prescription. Moreover, he still had not turned in his gradebook, parent log, and daily schedule, as directed on March 3, 1992. He was given an unacceptable annual evaluation because of his deficiencies in professional responsibility. Respondent verbally disagreed with that decision stating that the unacceptable evaluation was for simple paper-pushing requirements. The prescription for professional responsibilities required Respondent to review from the faculty handbook School Board policy on grading criteria, to submit his gradebook on a weekly basis to Coplin, to maintain a gradebook and a log of parent conferences, to maintain daily attendance, to submit student assessment records to Coplin for review prior to submission of the nine-week grade report, and to complete the prescription from the May 27 observation by September 15, 1992. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1991/92 school year was overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in the category of professional responsibility. On September 20, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent because he was still wearing a "pocket-knife" in spite of the prior directive. He was directed not to wear the knife or the knife case. Respondent stated that he would not do as directed. On October 9, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Coplin and was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. He did not have a lesson plan, student work folders, tests, or a gradebook. It would not be possible to evaluate the students' strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, if an administrator were called upon to explain to a parent why a student got a particular grade, the administrator would not have been able to do so. Respondent was prescribed activities to help him correct his deficiencies. He was directed to write detailed lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella weekly. He was directed to complete specific activities in the TADS prescription manual dealing with lesson planning and assessment techniques and to prepare two teacher-made tests and to submit all to Coplin for review. The prescription was to be completed by October 30, 1992. By November 13, 1992, Respondent was exhibiting a pattern of excessive and unauthorized absences. The absences were unauthorized because he failed to call the school prior to his absences as required by directives contained in the faculty handbook. He was advised that his absences were adversely impacting the continuity of instruction for his students and the work environment. He was given directives to report his absences directly to the principal, document absences upon return to the worksite, and provide lesson plans and materials for use by the substitute teacher when he was absent. On November 13, 1992, it was noted that Respondent had not met the prescription deadline of October 30, 1992. Coplin gave Respondent a new prescription deadline of November 30, 1992. In addition, she made a supervisory referral to the EAP because of Respondent's excessive absences, unauthorized disappearance from work, poor judgment, and failures to carry out assignments. By the end of November, 1992, Respondent had accumulated 21 absences. While he was absent, there were no gradebook, lesson plans or student folders for the substitute teacher. The substitute teacher was told to create a gradebook, lesson plans, and student work folders. All was in order when Respondent returned to work. On December 11, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Norniella and was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, in techniques of instruction, and in assessment techniques. Because his techniques of instruction were also rated unacceptable, Respondent recognized for the first time that his teaching performance was being criticized. He had dismissed the prior criticisms as simply problems with creating a "paper-work trail". Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because he did not have a lesson plan. Norniella gave him a chance to turn in the lesson plans the following Monday, but he failed to do so. Respondent was unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he used the same materials and methods for all students regardless of their individual needs. Respondent failed to establish background knowledge before beginning the lesson. The sequence of the lesson was confusing to Norniella. Respondent covered three different subjects (vocabulary, science, and math), all within a period set aside for language arts. Respondent was given a prescription to help correct his deficiencies. He was directed to write lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella on Fridays. He was to observe a reading/language arts lesson by another sixth- grade teacher. He was directed to maintain at least two grades per week in each subject for each student. He was also directed to complete specific activities in the TADS prescription manual relating to preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. He was directed to complete the prescription by January 15, 1993. He failed to complete any of the prescription activities. On January 4, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his performance and future employment. His absences and reporting procedures were also discussed as was his failure to comply with his prescription and prior directives. During the conference, Respondent was rude, agitated, and disrespectful. He yelled at the principal. His behavior did not reflect credit upon himself and the school system. He treated the conference as a joke. As of January 20, 1993, Respondent still had no gradebook. On January 25, 1993, he was notified that upon his return to the school site, there would be a conference-for-the-record to deal with his noncompliance with the directives to maintain a gradebook and to complete his prescription activities. A conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on March 3, 1993. It was noted that because of his absences, he had failed to meet the prescription deadline on January 15, 1993. Coplin gave him a new deadline of March 11, 1993. Respondent failed to meet the March 11, 1993, prescription deadline. Moreover, he still had not completed his prior prescription for professional responsibility. Because of these failures, Coplin extended the 1992 professional responsibility prescription through June 1993. On March 26, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Coplin and was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. While Respondent had some lesson plans, he did not have one for each subject taught during the day. The student folders contained no tests. Respondent was prescribed activities to help him correct his deficiencies. He was directed to develop weekly lesson plans and to submit them on Wednesdays for the principal to review. He was also to complete an assessment techniques activity from the TADS prescription manual and was to submit the activity to Coplin for review. His prescription was to be completed by April 23, 1993. On April 1, 1993, Respondent was placed on prescription for professional responsibilities for failure to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and school site policies and directives concerning lesson plans, student assessment, record keeping, and maintaining a gradebook. He was directed to develop weekly lesson plans for each subject taught and to submit those to the principal for review. He was directed to read Article X of the Labor Contract and to submit a summary to the principal for review. He was directed to review the section of the faculty handbook concerning maintaining a gradebook. He was directed to maintain an updated gradebook with at least two grades per week per subject and to label the grades. He was directed to maintain a parental conference log in the gradebook. He was directed to submit his gradebook to the principal for weekly review. On May 12, 1993, Coplin advised Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) that Respondent had failed to comply with the directive of November 13, 1992, concerning procedures for reporting absences. He had been absent on April 13, 16, 23, 27, and May 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11, 1993, without calling the principal in advance. Respondent claims that he called the school secretary at her home before 7:00 a.m. every time he was absent, except for one time. Although the secretary told him he would have to speak directly to the principal, he chose not to call the school when Coplin was there. Calling the secretary does not absolve him from his responsibility to comply with the principal's directive to speak to her personally. On May 19, 1993, Respondent was sent a letter directing him to schedule a conference at OPS. Respondent did not do so. On that same day, Coplin was advised by EAP that EAP was closing Respondent's case due to his noncompliance with the program. Respondent was absent without authorized leave from April 23 - June 17, 1993. Moreover, he had 106 absences for the school year. Nine of these were paid sick leave, and 97 were leave without pay. The school year has 180 student contact days. Because of Respondent's absences and failure to follow leave procedures, Coplin was not able to secure a permanent substitute teacher. Respondent's students were subjected to frequent changes in substitute teachers and a lack of continuity in their education. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1992/93 school year was overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Because of Respondent's absences, the usual conference-for-the-record could not be conducted, and Respondent's annual evaluation was sent to him by mail. Respondent failed to complete all prescriptions given him by Coplin and by Norniella. By letter dated June 15, 1992, OPS notified Respondent that he was willfully absent from duty without leave. He was given an opportunity to provide a written response and was advised that failure to do so would result in the termination of his employment. On July 6, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was conducted by Dr. Joyce Annunziata at OPS. The conference was held to discuss the pending dismissal action to be taken by Petitioner at its meeting of July 7, 1993. During the meeting, Respondent was extremely disoriented, turned his back on Annunziata, did not take the meeting seriously, made irrelevant comments, carried a stuffed purple animal which he talked to and through, and had watery, bloodshot eyes. He also wore his "pocket-knife" to the conference. Petitioner suspended Respondent and took action to initiate dismissal proceedings against him on July 7, 1993.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-3963 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3-27, and 29-56 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 28 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 and 7-9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 14-16 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10-13 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: William DuFresne, Esquire Du Fresne & Bradley 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 The Honorable Doug Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Did Respondent, Liudmila Parker, commit misconduct in office, willful neglect of duty and gross insubordination in violation of section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ as well as engage in conduct unbecoming a public employee? Did Ms. Parker violate the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession and Orange County School Board Management Directive B-12? What discipline, if any, should Petitioner, Orange County School Board (Board), impose on Ms. Parker?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Admitted by Both Parties2/ The Board employed Ms. Parker as a classroom teacher. Ms. Parker held a Professional Service Contract with the Board. Ms. Parker received a written reprimand on May 3, 2010, for verbal intimidation of students and interfering in an investigation. On November 19, 2010, Ms. Parker received a written reprimand for embarrassing students. On November 29, 2010, Ms. Parker received a 5 day suspension without pay for confronting a student regarding a complaint the student and his parent made about Ms. Parker. From February 9, 2011, through the end of the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Parker was on relief of duty status without pay. Background Facts Ms. Parker taught ninth-grade English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) at Dr. Phillips High School in Orange County, Florida, during the 2011-2012 school year. Ms. Parker has been teaching for 34 years. She started teaching in Lithuania where she taught for 27 years. In Lithuania she also taught ESOL. Ms. Parker majored in ESOL and has taught it all her life. Assistant Principal of Instruction Dr. Suzanne Knight was Ms. Parker's direct supervisor. When Ms. Parker began work at Dr. Phillips, she was given a copy of the Dr. Phillips High School Faculty and Staff Handbook. She also had access to an electronic copy of the handbook. The handbook included a copy of the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. The handbook also included a copy of Orange County Management Directive B-12, Code of Civility. Ms. Parker read and understood the handbook. Ms. Parker read and understood the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Ms. Parker read and understood the Code of Civility. The handbook described and emphasized how to use common sense and professional judgment to avoid complications resulting from conduct that violates the Code of Ethics. The handbook included these admonitions: "All co-workers and employees of the district are to be treated with dignity, respect and courtesy at all times." "Use common sense and good judgment. Ask yourself how someone else could perceive your comments or actions. Ask yourself if your comments or actions could be taken out of context and/or misinterpreted." "Avoid putting yourself in a position where you have to defend, explain or justify your behavior or actions." December 8, 2011, Email Dr. Phillips High School Principal Eugene Trochinski observed Ms. Parker's classroom teaching on November 17, 2011. Dr. Knight observed Ms. Parker's classroom teaching on December 5, 2011. Mr. Trochinski and Dr. Knight gave Ms. Parker written comments after observing her performance. On December 8, 2011, in an email to Mr. Trochinski and Dr. Knight, sent at 3:52 a.m., Ms. Parker stated that she had "several questions to ask." The tone and the text of the email were confrontational and belligerent. Each of Ms. Parker's "questions" was in bold face font, something Ms. Parker does to demonstrate her indignation. Some of Ms. Parker's supervisors' observations and her "questions" follow: Observation--"Student in back of room working on Rosetta Stone but not engaged in daily lesson." "Question" "Do you think they should work with the whole group without understanding anything?" Do you think it is better for them???" Observation--"How do you celebrate success in the lesson" There was no evidence of this between teacher and students during my observation." "Question": "Do you want me to interrupt the test and start celebrating success because you came in for observation???" Observation--[Although the specific observation was not reproduced, it was plainly about the students not appearing to be engaged and the lesson being difficult to focus on.] "Question(s)"--"My students demonstrated good behavior and they were listening attentively. Your comments 'Students did not appear to be engaged in the lesson' and 'It was hard to focus on the lesson due to not understanding the starting point' do not make sense at all. Hard to focus for who? For you??? May be. My students were focused!!! Once again,Dr. Knight was in class during Benchmark test results analysis. Her comments show that she does not like to see that students are focused and attentive." Ms. Parker follows her "questions" with: "To sum up, I evaluate the above-mentioned comments of administrators as one more evidence of a biased attitude towards me at school; it is apparent nagging, nothing else." The email ends with a demand to compare and contrast the teacher training at Dr. Phillips with teacher training at Hunter's Creek Middle School and Evans High School. The last words of the email are: "Thank you for your time spent on reading this email. I am looking forward to getting your responses to my questions ASAP." Ms. Parker's explanation for her charges of bias was only that she was a good teacher and, therefore, Dr. Knight must be picking on her. Section 1012.34(3)(c) and Article X, Section (B)(2) of the Contract between the School Board of Orange County and the Orange County Classroom Teachers Association impose a duty on Dr. Knight and Mr. Trochinski to evaluate the performance of teachers under their supervision, including Ms. Parker. This observation and assessment is not "nagging" or "bias." Ms. Parker's December 8, 2011, email about their observations was discourteous, disrespectful, uncooperative, and a display of temper. It interfered with her ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight and Mr. Trochinski to effectively perform their duties. Ms. Parker's email also demonstrates a refusal to take responsibility for her own actions and statements. Ms. Parker's testimony about a later conversation with Ms. Knight affirmed the hostility to criticism and suggestions for improvement recorded in her email. One example is her lengthy answer, at page 430, line 16 of the Transcript, to the question "How long would she [Dr. Knight] come in to your class?" Ms. Parker's answer included this statement, with emphasis supplied: So--and then when she said that it doesn't coincide, I asked, Okay, Dr. Knight, for example you were in my class on December 5th, and you saw--and she wrote down, she had in her notes--that we were going to read and work with fluency based on the story The Birds. And she said, yes. I said, Then why do you say that my lesson plans do not coincide with what I was teaching? She said, Hum, I came in at the beginning and then I don't know what you were teaching. I said, Do you think that I wrote this agenda for the president or somebody else? I wrote for the students. I cannot just write the words and do something else. I don't know. It seems to me there is common sense here. Yeah. So she was just arguing. And her statements, I don't know. This statement was a display of temper, discourteous, disrespectful, and uncooperative. It also interfered with Ms. Parker's ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight to perform her duties. Because of the December 8, 2011, email, Dr. Knight held a conference with Ms. Parker on December 9, 2011, about the email. Dr. Knight explained what was wrong with the email. She also advised Ms. Parker of the importance of being careful when writing emails because of the risks that a writer may not be as polite as they would be in a personal conversation and the risk that emails may be written and sent when emotions are running high. Ms. Parker reiterated her claims that all criticisms were due to bias. Ms. Parker interrupted Dr. Knight and said "Let's have a dialogue not a monologue." During the meeting of December 8, 2012, Ms. Parker did not acknowledge any validity to any of the concerns raised. She did, however, complain about training and lack of support. During this meeting, Ms. Parker communicated in person as she had in the email. She again demonstrated an inability to accept criticism and responsibility for her own actions. She was again discourteous, disrespectful, and uncooperative and displayed her temper. Ms. Parker's behavior interfered with her ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight to perform her duties. Ms. Parker's approach was the same during her testimony. She testified that she had a right to tell an administrator to stop talking and let her speak. Ms. Parker impatiently described the December 8 meeting as useless. In her words starting at page 556, line 17: Yes, I can [tell an administrator that she should stop talking]. Because she was starting to say again and again, and I have no time to sit the whole planning period without any production, without any use, because my planning period I'd rather spend with students. By the way, at that meeting, I wanted to stand up and leave her office, because she didn't want to listen to me. She was only talking, talking, talking. For monologue, she could send me an e-mail. If it was a dialogue--meeting is meant for dialogue, for exchanging ideas, for talking, to discussing [sic] things, but she was just talking and talking. That's why I said, Let us have dialogue, not monologue, because she was speaking 15 minutes. Later in her testimony, Ms. Parker dismisses Dr. Knight's efforts to explain what Ms. Parker had done wrong and suggest improvements this way: "She brought me there to discuss things. Instead of discussion, she began to say boring things, repeating." Ms. Parker's testimony reflected the confrontational and belligerent approach manifested in her emails and conversations during her employment. She repeatedly expressed her view of her superiority as a teacher and her view that all criticisms were unfounded and unfair. She never acknowledged even a possibility that any of her actions or communications were improper. "Elements of Literature" Communications On January 5, 2012, Ms. Parker lunched with fellow teacher Brandi Boone and two other teachers. During lunch, Ms. Parker said that she did not use the "Elements of Literature" curriculum book and had not used it since the beginning of the year, because it was "too difficult" for her students. On January 11, 2012, Dr. Knight conducted an ESOL meeting to address aligning the ESOL curriculum with the general English curriculum. Having both general and ESOL students use the "Elements of Literature" curriculum was part of the school's required teaching strategy. During the meeting, Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight that she used the "Elements of Literature" curriculum and that she loved it. On January 12, 2012, Ms. Boone approached Dr. Knight and told Dr. Knight about Ms. Parker's statement during the January 5, 2012, lunch meeting that she was not using "Elements of Literature" because it was too difficult for her students. On January 17, 2012, Dr. Knight called Ms. Parker in to her office. Assistant Principal Alisa Dorsett was present. During the meeting Dr. Knight asked Ms. Parker if she used "Elements of Literature." She asked because of her observations of Ms. Parker's classroom teaching and Ms. Boone's statements. Ms. Parker said that she was. Because of what she had observed and what Ms. Boone had reported, Dr. Knight questioned the accuracy of this. She told Ms. Parker she thought that Ms. Parker was "being less than honest." This was a fair observation based on the information known to Dr. Knight. During the meeting, Ms. Parker repeatedly got up and tried to go behind Dr. Knight's desk to show her documents. Dr. Knight repeatedly had to ask Ms. Parker to sit down. At the end of the meeting, Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight that "If you want to go to court, we can go to court." Ms. Parker testified that she said: "Shall we go to court? We'll go to court." Regardless of the exact wording, the gist of the comment is the same. The comment, like Ms. Parker's conduct in the meeting, was a combative, discourteous, threatening, and uncooperative response to Dr. Knight's attempt to address a professional issue. The comment and Ms. Parker's behavior in the meeting also interfered with Ms. Parker's ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight to perform her duties. It is not the fact that Ms. Parker wanted to exercise her legal rights that is improper. It is the way she expressed it that is improper. Ms. Parker's repeated attempts to move behind Dr. Knight's desk were also combative, discourteous, threatening, and uncooperative. Emails of January 17 and 18 After the January 17 meeting, Ms. Parker wrote emails to Dr. Knight and Ms. Dorsett. In her January 17 email to Ms. Dorsett, Ms. Parker asked Ms. Dorsett to write in her notes that Dr. Knight told Ms. Parker that she was a dishonest person and that Ms. Parker had lied during the ESOL meeting. Ms. Dorsett replied that she would write that Ms. Parker had asked to have that statement included in her notes. But Ms. Dorsett testified that she did not agree that the requested additions were accurate. Ms. Parker sent another email to Dr. Knight on January 18, 2012, in which she said that Ms. Dorsett had not responded to the January 17 email. Ms. Parker then asked in the email, "So who is dishonest then?" The statement is discourteous, disrespectful, a display of temper, and uncooperative. It also interfered with Ms. Parker's ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight and Ms. Dorsett to perform their duties. Communications with Ms. Boone On Sunday, January 22, 2012, at 12:49 a.m., Ms. Parker sent Ms. Boone an email. In it, Ms. Parker accused Ms. Boone of telling Dr. Knight that she grouped her students by ethnicities. Ms. Parker, who suspected but had not confirmed that Ms. Boone told Dr. Knight that she said she did not use "Elements of Literature," went on to discuss her usage of "Elements of Literature." The email concluded: "My colleagues who create slanders will be really upset when investigation starts. According to The Principles of Professional Conduct, 'the educator shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings.' You have to be honest and tell the truth. You must take responsibility for your words and actions." The statement was threatening. Ms. Parker intended to convey to Ms. Boone that she would sue her for slander. Exercising your legal rights, including in a work place context, is not inherently improper. But Ms. Parker's threat of investigations and slander suits reduced her ability to effectively perform her duties, reduced Ms. Boone's ability to effectively perform her duties, harassed Ms. Boone, created a hostile and intimidating environment, and was bullying. Ms. Boone replied in an email of January 22, 2012, at 8:24 p.m. She denied accusing Ms. Parker of grouping students by ethnicity. She acknowledged providing information to Dr. Knight and that she was appalled when Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight she used and loved "Elements of Literature." In a second email a few minutes later, Ms. Boone said that she wanted Dr. Knight present for any further conversations between her and Ms. Parker about students or Ms. Parker's claims. Ms. Parker responded with a lengthy email that included the following series of sarcastic and combative statements. You showed yourself a very disrespectful person accusing me, a veteran teacher, who is 2 times older than you, who has worked 34 years at school. I also noticed that you have hearing problems. Am I right? Maybe you misunderstood something and jumped to conclusions? Besides, I love humor. Boring people do not understand it as a rule. And guess what? I have a lot of students' works done during the first semester based on "Elements of Literature", and I can show them to everybody at any time. I showed them to Dr. Knight. Why should I tell [sic] that I did not work with EL??? You saw my students' projects too. In your class there are no students' works at all! To sum up, you violated the Principles of Professional Conduct: Obligation to the Profession of Education (d) and (e) because you created offensive environment and made a malicious statement about your colleague (me). Now you will have to take responsibility for your words. After your actions I have no desire to communicate with you at all, but because of working conditions I will have to have "that pleasure", only in the presence of Rita or administrator. Ms. Parker's statements in these email communications harassed Ms. Boone and created a hostile, intimidating, and oppressive environment. The statements were discourteous and interfered with the ability of Ms. Parker and Ms. Boone to perform their duties. Midpoint Evaluation Dr. Knight met with Ms. Parker on January 19, 2012, to discuss her midpoint evaluation. Assistant Principal Bridget Bresk attended as a witness. During the meeting, Dr. Knight gave Ms. Parker a direct and reasonable order to acknowledge that she had received the written mid-point evaluation. Ms. Parker had not acknowledged receipt as requested when she was provided the evaluation. The acknowledgement form only asked the teacher to acknowledge receiving the evaluation. It did not state or imply that the teacher agreed with the evaluation. Ms. Parker refused. Ms. Parker said that she would not acknowledge receipt of the evaluation because she did not agree with it. Dr. Knight explained that the acknowledgement simply stated that Ms. Parker had received it and did not say that Ms. Parker agreed with the evaluation. Ms. Parker still refused. She told Dr. Knight that "acknowledge" means to agree and that Dr. Knight "should look it up yourself." Ms. Parker intentionally refused to obey a reasonable direct order given by her direct supervisor, Dr. Knight. Ms. Parker was also discourteous and uncooperative. Her conduct impaired Dr. Knight's ability to perform her duties. During the meeting, when they discussed what Ms. Parker needed to improve, Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight "sorry for breathing." She sought to justify the comment by saying it was an "American expression." Ms. Parker also told Dr. Knight her comments after the classroom observation about celebrating student success were "ridiculous." At the meeting's end, Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight one of the following: "I have people who will take care of me and I have people who will take care of you"; "There are people who will take care of me and take care of you."; or "There are people who will take care of me and you." There are no material differences between the three statements. Any version is a threatening and bullying statement. Ms. Parker's argument that she was only stating the obvious, that she could file a grievance, is not persuasive. She made no reference to a grievance in the meeting. Her words plainly convey a darker impression than "we may have to agree to disagree and resolve our disagreements legally" or "I will file a grievance about this." The preceding comments were threatening, bullying, discourteous, disrespectful, and uncooperative. Also, throughout the meeting, Ms. Parker's conduct impaired the ability of Dr. Knight and Ms. Parker to perform their duties. After the meeting, Ms. Parker sent Dr. Knight two emails. The first, sent at 5:20 p.m., included the following two sarcastic statements: I appreciate your close attention to me lately. I wish you started to analyze planning problems since the beginning of the school year, but better late than never. Well, I think you are very brave. I wonder if you are aware of the fact that Code of Civility refers to all OCPS employees, not only teachers. The second, sent 30 minutes later, included the two statements that follow. Referring to Dr. Knight's concerns about whether Ms. Parker was using the "Elements of Literature," Ms. Parker said: It proves again and again your hostile biased attitude. Earlier or later, we all have to pay for what we have done. . . . (Unknown author). Ms. Parker's original explanation that she was paraphrasing a biblical passage and her later explanation that she was quoting Oscar Wilde are neither persuasive nor material. The source of the quote does not alter the fact that the statement and the entire email are discourteous, disrespectful, bullying, and uncooperative. Grievance Meeting On January 20, 2012, Ms. Parker submitted a grievance to the Board's employee relations office. Carianne Reggio, the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer and Equity Officer for the Orange County Schools, investigated the grievance. Ms. Reggio met with Ms. Parker on March 20, 2012, to advise her of the result of the investigation. During the meeting Ms. Parker displayed, as she had in her meetings with Dr. Knight, what the union representative described as confidence "that borders on what we might perceive as arrogance." During the meeting, Ms. Parker gave no indication that she acknowledged that anything she had said or done during the communications and meetings from December 2011 forward was inappropriate or improper. She maintained that same position during her testimony. During the three-hour meeting, Ms. Reggio reviewed her findings of no violations with Ms. Parker and considered Ms. Parker's reactions and complaints. Ms. Parker was very upset. While Ms. Reggio was walking Ms. Parker to the elevator, Ms. Parker said she could see why teachers resort to extreme measures and shoot up school systems. This was a reference to a recent murder/suicide in Jacksonville, Florida, where a teacher shot the headmistress of his school and then killed himself. Ms. Parker did not accompany this statement with any gestures, a display of a weapon, or any more specific statement. The statement was crass, disquieting, and inappropriate. But it was not a threat. On March 6, 2012, the Superintendent of Schools recommended termination of Ms. Parker's contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Orange County School Board enter a final order finding that there is just cause to terminate Ms. Parker's employment and terminating her professional service contract for just cause pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to place Respondent, a classroom teacher, on administrative leave without pay from November 20, 2013, through the remainder of the 2013- 2014 school year due to Respondent’s excessive absenteeism, as alleged in the December 19, 2013, Statement of Charges.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at PSLHS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida. Respondent has been employed by the District for approximately 20 years. Respondent has a professional services contract pursuant to section 1012.33. As a classroom teacher, Respondent is charged with instructing high school students. Regular attendance is considered by Petitioner to be an essential function of the position of classroom teacher. Pursuant to Board Policy 6.549(1)(a), Respondent was entitled to four days of sick leave as of the first day of employment of each school year and thereafter earned one sick day for each month of employment, for a maximum of ten sick days per school year. 2012-2013 School Year During the 2012-2013 fiscal year, Respondent was assigned to teach intensive math classes to students who struggle to pass required state exams required for graduation. Hargadine, in coordination with Petitioner’s Human Resources Department, directed Assistant Principal April Rogers (Rogers) to meet with Respondent on October 2, 2012, to address Respondent’s pattern of absenteeism and the impact it was having on students, and to explore the possibility of accommodations if his frequent absences were caused by a health condition. At least one student asked to be removed from Respondent’s class due to the frequency of Respondent’s absences. As directed, on October 2, 2012, Rogers met with Respondent and discussed Petitioner’s concerns that Respondent’s absences resulted in his students missing math instruction for 39 percent of their scheduled classes. Respondent was notified that he had already exhausted his available sick leave and he had not properly filled out leave requests in a timely manner. During this meeting, Respondent acknowledged that his absences had a negative impact on students. This conference was memorialized in a Summary of Conference dated October 2, 2012, issued to Respondent from Rogers. After the October 2, 2012, meeting, Respondent was also absent on October 16 through 19, 2012. On October 23, 2012, Rogers issued a Letter of Concern to Respondent detailing his continued excessive absenteeism and failure to timely request leave. The letter advised that Respondent’s absenteeism amounted to 17 of 42 instructional days and equated to 40 percent of lost instructional time for Respondent’s students. This letter reiterated that Respondent’s absences directly affect his students’ educational success. In addition to Respondent disrupting the continuity of the classroom by failing to attend work, Respondent also failed to supply adequate lesson plans and/or provide for student instruction while he took unapproved leave. On several occasions, Hargadine or her assistant principal had to create or add to the lesson plans to enable a substitute to teach Respondent’s classes. Respondent’s absenteeism and lack of proper notice of his absences resulted in his students being “taught” by individuals who did not have a college degree in mathematics, or even education, as some of these individuals were substitutes (who only need a high school diploma), para-educators, and even clerical workers. When staff members were required to provide coverage for Respondent’s classes, it negatively impacted both students and co-workers. For example, if a clerical worker or para-educator was called to provide coverage for Respondent’s classes, their own work would have to wait and they would not be able to complete their own specific job duties in order to ensure coverage for Respondent’s students. After receiving the October 23, 2012, Letter of Concern, Respondent was also absent on October 31, November 1, November 2, November 5, and November 6, 2012. As the assistant superintendent for Human Resources, Ranew assists site-based administrators (principals and assistant principals) concerning staff discipline and adherence to policies and procedures. Rogers requested Ranew’s assistance in addressing Respondent’s absenteeism. On November 6, 2012, Ranew issued a letter to Respondent regarding his excessive absenteeism. This letter from Ranew reminded Respondent of the importance of him submitting leave requests because his school would not know of his absence even if he properly requested a substitute teacher using the AESOP (computerized) system. By this letter, Ranew also attempted to initiate the “interactive process” required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although Respondent had not identified himself as a “qualified individual with a disability” within the meaning of the ADA, his excessive absenteeism suggested that he might need an accommodation if his absenteeism was being caused by a medical condition. The November 6 letter stated, “to the extent that your absenteeism is being caused by medical condition, the District may be agreeable to allowing you to take a leave [of absence] to accommodate such a condition, if that would help. In the event you realize that you are unable to regularly be at work due to a medical condition, you should consider promptly requesting an extended leave of absence (e.g., for this semester or the school year), and the District would be willing to consider such a request.” To determine Respondent’s potential eligibility for an accommodation pursuant to the ADA, Ranew specifically requested that Respondent’s doctor provide documentation clarifying: “a) any specific condition/impairment that Respondent has, as well as the cause; b) any restrictions/limitations on Respondent’s work duties as a teacher; c) the expected duration for each limitation or whether it is permanent; d) whether the condition is controllable with the use of medication, and if yes: what is the mitigating effect of this medication; and whether Respondent could fully perform his job duties, with the aid of such medication.” In response to Ranew’s letter, Respondent provided the District with a doctor’s note from Dr. Kenneth Palestrant dated November 7, 2012, stating that the majority of Respondent’s visits to the clinics occur between the months of January through May and September through December (effectively during the calendar school year) and speculated that Respondent “may” be exposed to allergens in the school building or in his classroom. Dr. Palestrant explained that Respondent was being treated with antibiotics and allergy medications and recommended Respondent receive an allergy test from an allergist to identify the specific allergens. Dr. Palestrant found that other than the potential environmental exposure to an allergen, he found “no reason [Respondent] cannot perform his full duties as a school teacher as he has no impairment and the medications he has been given have no mitigating effect upon his performance.” After receiving Dr. Palestrant’s November 7, 2012, note, and after receiving an e-mail from Respondent in which he wondered if something in his classroom might be causing his medical condition, Ranew asked Sanders to inspect Respondent’s classroom. Sanders’ job duties would require him to facilitate any remedial action with regard to Respondent’s classroom, should one be needed. In response to this request, Respondent’s classroom was inspected but nothing of concern was discovered within the room. Nonetheless, the classroom was sanitized using two methods: with an ozone machine to kill bacteria and other germs, including mold, and also with a fogger using disinfectant that kills microorganisms, bacteria, and mold, as a precaution. On November 15, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to Ranew, informing her that he was “being evaluated by an Allergist, and will be setting up a colonoscopy per doctor’s orders Tuesday, [November 20, 2012].” On November 15, 2012, Ranew sent an e-mail to Respondent requesting that he provide her with an allergist report when complete. On November 16, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to Ranew in which he discussed beginning to take a new allergy medicine, and promised to fax the allergist report to her. Ranew issued a letter to Respondent dated December 21, 2012, advising him that she had yet to receive an allergist report, again requesting such a report or medical clarification. Ranew’s December 21, 2012, letter also reminded Respondent that regular, consistent, punctual attendance, and working a full assigned workday are essential functions of his position as a classroom teacher. Although Respondent did not request leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), when he failed to provide the requested allergist report five weeks after Ranew requested it, and Respondent continued his pattern of excessive absenteeism, the District advised that it intended to designate his absences as FMLA-qualifying. Ranew’s December 21, 2012, letter to Respondent again requested clarification from Respondent’s doctor/allergist, with a focus on “whether there is a modification or adjustment to the work environment that will enable you to perform the essential functions of [your] position (classroom teacher).” Respondent was told, “[i]n the event that you believe that something such as trees, grass, or something else near your current classroom/school may be causing your condition, which has resulted in many absences, the [School] District is willing to consider a request to transfer you to another location.” Notably, Respondent did not provide any information from a health care provider which suggested any work modification would enable him to perform the essential functions of his job, nor did he take advantage of Petitioner’s offer of a transfer to another location. In response, Respondent emailed Ranew on December 29, 2012, advising that his allergy test would be conducted on January 3, 2013, and he would provide the results to her as soon as he received them. Respondent also expressed interest in obtaining information regarding short-term disability leave. On January 8, 2013, Ranew advised Respondent that if he desired to take leave in connection with his private insurance company’s short-term disability policy, she requested that he advise her “as soon as possible as the [School] District may be able to accommodate you with an extended leave.” There is no evidence that Respondent pursued Ranew’s offer for an accommodation in connection with short-term disability. By letter dated January 8, 2013, Ranew advised Respondent that she still had not received a copy of his allergist’s report, and she “had been trying to accommodate [Respondent], but it is difficult to do when the information [the School District] need[s] is still not provided.” Ranew again reminded Respondent that his students needed continuity in the classroom and, if he was unable to provide that, other arrangements would need to be made for the upcoming semester. Respondent provided Ranew with an allergist report dated January 18, 2013. The report explained that Respondent tested positive for multiple allergens, and recommended treatments, including immunotherapy (allergy injections), prescribed medications (nasal sprays), and surgery (balloon sinuplasty). Respondent’s allergist identified Respondent being allergic to 42 antigens, including cats, dogs, various grasses, weeds, trees, dust mites and cockroaches, and mold. Respondent’s allergist recommended Respondent undergo surgery, and Petitioner permitted Respondent to take FMLA leave for such surgery. Respondent was also permitted to intermittently use all remaining FMLA leave available to him, which he exhausted and which expired on March 28, 2013, due to the conclusion of his FMLA designated 12-month period. In addition to utilizing all FMLA leave available, the District also provided an additional 21 days of unpaid leave during the remainder of the 2012-2013 school year to Respondent, which was above and beyond his allotted sick leave, as well as above and beyond the 60 days of FMLA leave to which he was entitled. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent was absent 89 out of 191 possible work days, which accounts for an absenteeism rate of 48 percent. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent only worked 772.50 hours. Although Petitioner designated additional unpaid days as FMLA, Respondent was not eligible for additional FMLA leave beginning in March 2013 through March 2014 because he had not worked the requisite number of hours in the preceding 12- month period to be eligible for FMLA leave. 2013-2014 School Year On August 9, 2013, prior to the beginning of the 2013- 2014 school year, Ranew sent a letter to Respondent regarding his excessive absenteeism; explaining that his regular attendance was expected during the upcoming 2013-2014 school year; that his students need continuity in the classroom and if he was unable to provide that continuity, that other arrangements needed to be made for the next school year; that he should not expect to be automatically extended any additional unpaid leave during the 2013-2014 school year; and he would only receive the sick leave to which he was already entitled. Ranew advised Respondent that when he returned for work at the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year he would have four days of permitted sick leave advanced to him, and would accrue one additional day at the end of each month from August through February. In this letter, Ranew also told Respondent that it was her understanding that the sinus surgery that he underwent was part of his treatment plan to resolve the sinus and allergy issues which seriously impacted his attendance (during the 2012- 2013 school year) and that his chronic sinusitis was expected to improve post operatively. Respondent did not challenge or correct Ranew’s understanding on these issues and did not indicate that additional absences were anticipated. Ranew had serious concerns about the lack of consistent instruction for Respondent’s students due to Respondent’s absenteeism. Only 11 of Respondent’s 94 students passed the standardized math examination required for graduation in the 2012-2013 school year, which is approximately a 12 percent pass rate. This was significantly lower than the 50 percent pass rate of Respondent’s colleagues who also taught the same type of “struggling” math students. In order to minimize the potential disruption to students caused by excessive absenteeism, Respondent was assigned to teach accounting classes for the new school year which are not courses required for graduation. Respondent was also assigned to a different classroom, in a different building, for the 2013-2014 school year. As of October 3, 2013, Respondent was absent on August 27, 28, 29, 30, and September 5, 9, 20, 23, 25, 26, and October 2, 2013, well in excess of the sick leave that he was permitted to take in accordance with Board policy. By letter dated October 3, 2013, Ms. Ranew wrote to Respondent advising him that his pattern of absenteeism has a direct negative impact on an orderly learning environment and referring to her August 9 correspondence wherein she directed Respondent to advise the District if he needed leave above and beyond the sick days that he was permitted to take. Ranew advised Respondent that he had not provided the requested medical documentation that would support that he had a medical condition necessitating leave from his job, but that the District was continuing its attempt to engage Respondent in an interactive process concerning his medical condition, and again requested documentation from Respondent’s doctor addressing his recent absences and his current condition. In response to Ranew’s October 3, 2013, letter, Respondent submitted a doctor’s note dated October 9, 2013, which advised that Respondent’s condition “can be treated with nasal sprays and intermittent antibiotics” but raised the potential for future treatment to include additional surgical procedure(s). Importantly, the doctor’s note clearly explained that Respondent “can perform as a teacher with [his medical conditions], though he may notice hearing loss changes whenever he has middle ear fluid.” The October 9, 2013, doctor’s note Respondent submitted accounted for four of his absences in August and two of his absences in September, but failed to address the other eight absences which he incurred during September and October 2013. Even after receiving Ms. Ranew’s October 3, 2013, letter, Respondent was absent on October 9, 21, and 22, 2013. As of October 24, 2013, Respondent was absent 14 days out of 46 instructional days for the 2013-2014 school year. Ranew worked with Yost in the decision to recommend to the Board that Respondent be placed on administrative leave without pay. The basis for that recommendation was Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and failure to follow protocol for sick leave. By letter dated October 24, 2013, Yost advised Respondent that she was recommending his placement on a leave of absence specifically because of his continual excessive absenteeism, which had been a constant disruption to the classroom and directly impacted an orderly, continuous learning environment for his students. Yost believed that recommending Respondent be placed on leave without pay was not disciplinary in nature, but rather done to provide him an accommodation to resolve any issues which had caused his excessive absenteeism. On October 24, 2013, Yost placed Respondent on “home assignment” with pay through November 19, 2013, at which time the Board voted to accept Yost’s recommendation to place Respondent on leave without pay for the remainder of the school year. The Charges Against Respondent In its Statement of Charges in Support of the Placement on Administrative Leave Without Pay filed on December 19, 2013, the District advanced four theories for Respondent’s leave without pay: incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office. “Incompetency” is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(3) as, “the inability, failure or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity.” “Gross insubordination” is defined in rule 6A-5.056(4) as “the intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority; misfeasance, or malfeasance as to involve failure in the performance of the required duties.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-5.056(2)(c). “Willful neglect of duty” is defined in rule 6A-5.056(5) as the “intentional or reckless failure to carry out required duties.” “Misconduct in Office,” according to rule 6A-5.056(2), is satisfied by a showing of one or more of the following: a violation of the adopted school board rules, a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (as adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001), or behavior that disrupts the student’s learning environment. The Board’s Policy 6.301(3)(b) identifies a variety of terminable offenses including: Insubordination * * * (x) Failure to follow a direct order in normal performance of employee’s job * * * Failure to notify supervisor and receive permission for one or more consecutive workdays’ absence Unsatisfactory work performance Excessive absences or tardiness Neglect of duty Unauthorized absences * * * (xix) Violation of any rule, policy, regulation, or established procedure * * * (xxix) Any violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, the Standards of Competent and Professional Performance, or the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees * * * (xxxiv) Failure to correct performance deficiencies The finding that Respondent violated one and/or multiple Board policies relating to his excessive absenteeism necessarily shows that he is guilty of “misconduct in office.” Respondent’s Defenses Reason for Absences Respondent does not dispute his record of absenteeism or the District’s record of communicating its concern regarding his chronic absenteeism and its effect on his students. Rather, Respondent asserts that his absenteeism was related to the environmental conditions at PSLHS. Respondent believes that he suffered from chronic sinus problems, headaches, and repeated scratchy throats due to possible exposure to mold or other allergens at the school which caused many of his absences. According to Respondent, PSLHS suffered storm damage in 2008 that resulted in mold growing around his classroom door. After school authorities were notified by Respondent of the mold issue, the door and mold was removed. Respondent has not worked in that classroom in more than three years. Respondent admitted that some of his absences during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years were not related to sinus problems. For example, Respondent missed work when he stayed up late with a new puppy. Respondent also missed work to get massage therapy on several occasions. Several of Respondent’s absences were attributed to stomach issues. None of Respondent’s doctors identified any need for Respondent to be extensively absent from work due to any medical condition, other than his recommended sinus surgery which occurred in early 2013 and was covered by FMLA. No evidence was introduced at the hearing that any of Respondent’s doctors actually determined that anything either at PSLHS or within Respondent’s classroom caused Respondent’s excessive absenteeism, or that Respondent could not work at PSLHS due any medical reason. To the contrary, during the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent provided 30 doctor’s notes returning him to work with no restrictions. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent provided four doctor’s notes returning him to work with no restrictions. Respondent admitted he was allergic to various grasses and trees common to Florida, and even admitted he was allergic to the grass in his own yard. When Respondent was asked if anything changed in his home environment between the 2011-2012 and 2012- 2013 school years where his absences skyrocketed, he testified that he had just gotten a puppy. During the relevant time period, approximately 70 percent of Respondent’s absences occurred on days when the proceeding day was not a school day, which suggests it was unlikely that Respondent’s absences were due to the environment at his work site. Although Respondent claimed his school environment exacerbated his allergies, his absences at issue are full-day absences where he called in sick for the entire day rather than leaving work during the workday. At no time did Respondent or his healthcare providers suggest that PSLHS or Respondent’s classroom should have air quality testing. Respondent admitted, on the days he was absent, he felt worse when he woke up at home than when he was at work in his classroom and when he was too sick to come to work he would wake up “hacking.” Further, while on administrative leave without pay, Respondent showed up to PSLHS in January 2014 to oversee a wrestling tournament that he previously helped organize. It is illogical that Respondent would voluntarily return to the very place which he now suggests made him so sick that he needed to continuously take days off without available leave or sick time. No credible evidence was presented to suggest that Respondent’s chronic absenteeism was as a result of the District’s failure “to provide a suitable working environment,” as alleged by Respondent.1/ Use of Administrative Leave Rather Than Discipline The Board asserts that Respondent’s chronic pattern of absences during the 2012-2013 school year and the first few months of the 2013-2014 school year resulted in “just cause” for termination. However, in lieu of termination, Ranew proposed, and the Board accepted, her recommendation for administrative leave without pay. Ranew credibly testified that she believed this would give Respondent the opportunity to take care of any problems that were causing his absenteeism and allow him to successfully return to the classroom in the 2014-2015 school year. There is no provision under any statute, rule, or policy specifically providing the Board with the authority to place an employee on administrative leave without pay instead of a suspension without pay or termination.2/ Because of this, Respondent argues that he was deprived of due process by the Board and that the Board’s action constitutes the improper use of an unpromulgated rule. A “rule” is defined in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as an: agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. The term also includes the amendment or repeal of rule. § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. No evidence was presented regarding any alleged Board “statement of general applicability” regarding the use of administrative leave without pay as a substitute for disciplinary action. Further, it is clear from the record that Respondent received all the process to which he was entitled--notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the implementation of the leave without pay. Respondent was provided a letter by hand delivery on October 24, 2013, from Yost in which he was advised that he was being placed on temporary duty assignment until the next Board meeting and that she intended to recommend he be placed on administrative leave without pay through the remainder of the school year due to his excessive absenteeism. He was notified that he had exhausted all paid leave yet continued to be absent. It was also noted that Respondent’s physician indicated he could perform as a teacher but may have a hearing loss when middle ear fluid is present. Notably, his physician’s letter accounted for four of his absences in August and two of his absences in September 2013, but did not address the other eight absences which he incurred during September and October 2013. This letter advised Respondent that if he had any information to provide regarding why this action should not be taken, he could do so in a meeting or in writing. Accordingly, Respondent had notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the implementation of the leave without pay. Additionally, the Statement of Charges issued on December 19, 2013, and the formal administrative hearing before DOAH constituted notice and an evidentiary hearing-–the post adverse employment action due process to which Respondent was entitled. The undersigned has no doubt about the sincerity of the Board’s desire to see Respondent take time to address whatever was resulting in his absences and return to work successfully. However, to call Respondent’s “administrative leave without pay” a non-disciplinary action is an exercise in form over substance. While on leave, Respondent was not receiving his normal wages for teaching. He was not allowed to return to the school to teach for the balance of the school year.3/ Understandably, Respondent does not perceive his leave as beneficent. For all intents and purposes it is, in fact, a “suspension” without pay which, pursuant to the Board’s policies, applicable rules, and statutes, can only be imposed for “just cause.”4/ Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent engaged in a pattern of excessive and chronic unexcused absenteeism during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, despite the District’s repeated reminders regarding the disruption caused by Respondent’s absences and its multiple attempts to accommodate any medical condition that might have been causing the absences.5/ This pattern resulted in a variety of terminable offenses as described in Board Policy 6.301(3)(b). It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of incompetency, as defined by rule 6A- 5.056(3)(a)5. by virtue of his excessive absenteeism--a pattern which was not resolved after FMLA leave, 21 additional days of leave without pay during the 2012-2013 school year, and which continued into the new school year of 2013-2014. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination by virtue of his failure to perform his required duties, excessive absenteeism despite having no paid leave available, and failing to return to work on a consistent and regular basis after repeated and extensive counseling by the District regarding the consequences of his actions. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent engaged in willful neglect of duty by failing to regularly report to work or to properly request time off from work or make arrangements to have lesson plans available for substitute teachers. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office by virtue of his violation of School Board policies and disrupting his students’ learning environment by his chronic absenteeism.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board, enter a final order upholding Respondent’s suspension without pay from November 20, 2013, through the end of the 2013- 2014 school year; denying back pay for the full period of his suspension; and reinstating Respondent’s employment as a teacher at the start of the 2014-2015 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be suspended and dismissed from employment, as a Microsystems Technician, with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, the School Board was a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. In November 2001, Mr. Li was employed with the School Board as a Microsystems Technician. No dispute exists that, as a Microsystems Technician, Mr. Li is an educational support employee, and his employment is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME, hereinafter the AFSCME Contract. In April 2004, Mr. Li was assigned to two worksites, Cypress Creek Elementary School, hereinafter Cypress Creek, and Blue Lakes Elementary School, hereinafter Blue Lakes. At both schools, his responsibilities included installing computers, running the network, maintaining the software for the computers, and training students and teachers on how to use the software. At Cypress Creek, Mr. Li was assigned to work ten (10) days per month. He experienced problems with his attendance immediately at Cypress Creek, resulting in the principal, Faye Haynes, issuing an “Absence From Worksite Directive,” hereinafter AWS Directive, on May 27, 2004, to Mr. Li. The AWS Directive included, among other things, in detail his leave without pay, authorized (LWOA), and leave without pay, unauthorized (LWOU). Further, the AWS Directive advised Mr. Li, among other things, that his absence from his duties adversely impacted the educational and work environment; and directed him, among other things, to be in regular attendance at the school and on time, to report his intent to be absent directly to the principal or assistant principal, and to provide to the principal or assistant principal written documentation, by way of a written medical note from the treating physician, of absences for illness. Additionally, Mr. Li was advised that future absences would be considered LWOU unless and until the documentation was provided. Mr. Li signed the AWS Directive. However, his attendance failed to improve. A second AWS Directive was issued by Principal Haynes to Mr. Li on September 7, 2004, as a result of his being absent on September 2, 2004. Mr. Li signed the second AWS Directive on the same date. The second AWS Directive included the same matters of which he was previously advised and the same directives. Moreover, Mr. Li was advised that his non- compliance with the directives would be considered a violation of professional responsibilities or insubordination. Mr. Li’s absences failed to improve, and his absences adversely affected the worksite at Cypress Creek. Both teachers and students were suffering from the lack of timely computer- associated activities that were dependent upon Mr. Li timely performing his responsibilities. Mr. Li’s attendance was complicated even more on October 26, 2006. He was arrested for burglary, involving a vehicle, and battery. At the time of his arrest, Principal Haynes was not aware that the reason for Mr. Li’s immediate absence was that he was in jail; she was only aware that he had not reported to work at Cypress Creek. Mr. Li testified at hearing that, while he was in jail, he was given one (1) telephone call and that he called his wife. He explained to his wife what had happened and requested her to call Cypress Creek. Further, Mr. Li testified that his wife called Cypress Creek and indicated that he had been arrested. No testimony was presented contradicting the testimony that Mr. Li’s wife had contacted Cypress Creek. His testimony is found to be credible. On November 1, 2006, Principal Haynes issued and mailed to Mr. Li an Employment Intention Memorandum, hereinafter EI Memorandum. The EI Memorandum indicated, among other things, the dates of Mr. Li’s absences; that the absences were unauthorized and warranted dismissal on the grounds of job abandonment; that several options were available (indicating the options); and that an immediate response was requested to any of the options. Principal Haynes was concerned that Mr. Li was in danger of losing his job due to the number of unauthorized absences and, as a result, she included, as one of the options, a form requesting a leave of absence without pay. Mr. Li testified that he did not doubt that Principal Haynes was attempting to help him. On November 3, 2006, after serving ten (10) days, Mr. Li was released from jail. He had missed seven (7) consecutive workdays. Mr. Li reported to work at Blue Lakes, where he was also the Microsystems Technician. However, he was informed by the principal at Blue Lakes that he was required to report to Regional Center V, as an alternate location, a consequence of his arrest. Being at Regional Center V, Mr. Li was not able to perform any duties and responsibilities at either Cypress Creek or Blue Lakes. Regarding the EI Memorandum, Mr. Li testified at hearing that he received the EI Memorandum after he was released from jail, but did not complete the form requesting a leave of absence without pay because he was unsure as to whether he should complete and return it. He was not sure as to whether completing the form would benefit or harm him, so he did not complete it. His testimony is found to be credible. The evidence is clear and convincing that Mr. Li intentionally did not complete the form requesting a leave of absence without pay. Not having the services of Mr. Li adversely impacted Cypress Creek. Principal Haynes needed the computer services for her school, and, to provide the needed services, she was forced to hire another school employee, a Microsystems Technician, on an hourly basis to work in the evenings to perform Mr. Li’s responsibilities. In order to pay for the needed services being provided by another Microsystems Technician, Principal Haynes had to redirect funds from other programs. As a condition of his alternate placement, on November 3, 2006, Mr. Li executed a Terms and Conditions of Administrative Placement at Alternate Location, hereinafter Terms and Conditions, form. Included in the Terms and Conditions was a requirement that he report to his work assignment during his regular duty hours, which were 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; that he report his attendance by signing-in as directed; that, if he was to take leave due to illness or personal reasons, he must notify the person to whom he reports his attendance in the mornings, who was the administrative director, Melanie Fox, Ph.D., or, according to Dr. Fox, to an administrative secretary; and that he must complete and return work assignments in a timely manner. Mr. Li had attendance problems immediately at Regional Center V, and Dr. Fox advised and reminded him that he was able to apply for leave for a medical condition, if he had such a situation. Due to Mr. Li’s absences, while he was assigned to the Regional Center, on January 19, 2007, Dr. Fox issued him a second EI Memorandum, which was his second EI Memorandum in less than three months. The EI Memorandum indicated that Mr. Li was absent from his worksite 34 times, beginning with September 15, 2006, and ending with January 18, 2007. Furthermore, Dr. Fox indicated, among other things, in the EI Memorandum that the absences were unauthorized and warranted dismissal on grounds of abandonment; that he had four options to which she requested his immediate reply, including notifying her of his need for leave and his intended date of return, requesting leave or resigning, using the forms provided; that he had three days in which to reply; that his absences were considered unauthorized until he communicated directly with her; and that his failure to respond would result in termination due to abandonment. Included with the EI Memorandum, per the School Board’s policy, was a Request for Leave for Absence Without Pay form and a Letter of Resignation form, as options for Mr. Li. He did not complete either form. To determine whether Mr. Li’s absences were authorized or unauthorized, Dr. Fox was guided by the terms of the AFSCME Contract. No dispute exists that the AFSCME Contract was applicable and controlling. Dr. Fox determined that, according to the AFSCME Contract, after the covered employee’s sick leave is expended, any subsequent absence becomes unauthorized unless the employee provides a note from an attending physician. As a result, Mr. Li had expended his sick leave and, therefore, his absences were leave without pay, unauthorized, but, when he provided notes from an attending physician, the absences were changed in the payroll reporting system to leave without pay, authorized. Mr. Li returned to work. However, his absences did not cease. As to Mr. Li’s arrest for burglary, involving a vehicle, and battery, on March 6, 2007, he pled nolo contendere to battery; adjudication was withheld; and his sentence included one-year probation, performing community service, and participating in an anger management program. Mr. Li testified at hearing that no burglary was involved, only a fight. His testimony is found to be credible. On May 16, 2007, a conference-for-the-record, hereinafter CFR, was held to address Mr. Li’s attendance problems; violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E1.01, Absences and Leaves; abandonment of position; insubordination; a review of his record; and his future employment status with the School Board. He did not attend the CFR due to being ill, i.e., passing kidney stones and experiencing great pain. A written Summary of the CFR was prepared, and Mr. Li was provided a copy of it. He does not deny that he received a copy of the Summary of the CFR. Included in the Summary of the CFR were Mr. Li’s absences for the 2005-2006 school year and from July 1, 2006 through May 3, 2007. For the 2005-2006 school year, he was absent six (6) sick days, six (6) personal days, nine (9) days LWOA, and one (1) day LWOU, totaling 22 days, excluding vacation days. From July 1, 2006 through May 3, 2007, he was absent two (2) sick days, three (3) personal days, 68 days LWOU, and 37 days LWOA, totaling 110 days, excluding vacation days. A copy of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4E1.01, Absences and Leaves, and 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, were attached to the Summary of the CFR. Also, included in the Summary of the CFR were directives to Mr. Li concerning his absences, which was his third time he was being issued directives. The directives included being in regular attendance and on time at the worksite; communicating directly with Dr. Fox when he intended to be absent; documenting absences for illness through a written medical note from his treating physicians presented to Dr. Fox upon his return to the worksite, with a failure to do so resulting in the absences being recorded as LWOU; and adhering to School Board rules, in particular 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves, and 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Furthermore, in the Summary of the CFR, Mr. Li was advised, among other things, that the number of absences were deemed excessive; that his absence from work had adversely impacted the educational program and the effective operation of the work unit; that, if he had attended, he would have been provided an opportunity to respond with reasons for his excessive unauthorized absences and insubordination; that noncompliance with the directives would necessitate a review by the Office of Professional Standards, hereinafter OPS; and that a legal review by the School Board attorneys might result in recommended action or disciplinary measures, including dismissal. Even after receiving the Summary of the CFR, Mr. Li’s problem with absences continued. As of June 13, 2007, he accumulated an additional 29 unauthorized absences. Subsequent to the CFR, Principal Haynes recommended the termination of Mr. Li because she determined that she could not depend upon him and that she needed a dependable Microsystems Technician at Cypress Creek. The Regional Superintendent for Region Center V concurred in her recommendation. OPS concurred in the recommendation because it considered Mr. Li’s conduct to violate the AFSCME Contract and the School Board’s rules regarding Responsibilities and Duties, Code of Ethics, and Absences and Leaves. As to the unauthorized absences, Mr. Li’s deposition was taken by the School Board, and, during the deposition, he presented documents purporting to excuse some of the unauthorized absences. Further, at hearing, he presented additional such documents. Mr. Li testified that his personnel file should have contained all of the documents that he had presented; that he requested his physicians to provide the documents to Cypress Creek; that his physicians informed him that they were not required to indicate the specific nature of the illness for which they were treating him but required only to indicate that they were treating him on the dates indicated; and that his physicians forwarded the documents to Cypress Creek, some by fax. The School Board agreed to accept the documents as demonstrating that the absences indicated on the documents should be excused and changed to authorized absences. Even with the changing of the documented absences from unauthorized to authorized, the School Board asserts that the total number of unauthorized absences is 74. The 74 unauthorized absences include 12 days that Mr. Li was in jail and appeared in court, which were brought to the attention of the School Board by Mr. Li. No dispute exists that Mr. Li had exhausted all of his sick and personal leave. Mr. Li does not contest that the total number of unauthorized absences is 74. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li had 74 unauthorized absences. However, at hearing, Mr. Li testified that he wants the reason known as to the medical reason for his absence from the worksite. He testified that the reason for the unauthorized absences, excluding the aforementioned 12 days, was that he was suffering from depression, which caused his immune system to weaken, which lead to other health problems, such as being susceptible to viruses and infections. Also, he testified that he was being seen by a psychiatrist. Furthermore, Mr. Li testified that, prior to his arrest, he was participating in the Employee Assistance Program, hereinafter EAP, due to his depression, and was being seen by a counselor; and that he continued in the EAP until his termination. Additionally, Mr. Li testified that he failed to complete the Request for Leave of Absence Without Pay form provided by Dr. Fox on January 19, 2007, because he was unsure as what might happen if he completed it since Dr. Fox had indicated to him that she did not believe that he was ill. Moreover, Mr. Li testified that he was not attempting to dispute the 74 unauthorized absences and to have the unauthorized absences changed to authorized absences, but that he was attempting to demonstrate that he was not a “bad person,” that he was not faking his illness, that the absences were not on purpose, and that he was not insubordinate. The undersigned finds Mr. Li’s testimony to be credible. The undersigned provided Mr. Li with the opportunity to continue the hearing in order for him to have his psychiatrist and counselor testify in this matter; however, Mr. Li decided not to take advantage of a continuance but to proceed with the hearing without the psychiatrist and counselor as witnesses. Even though the undersigned finds Mr. Li’s testimony regarding his depression credible, in particular, as to the effect of his depression on his physical well-being, and even though depression undoubtedly affects one’s mental well- being, including one’s thinking process, no testimony was presented as to what extent Mr. Li’s depression affected his thinking process. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li was physically ill during the absences, except for the 12 absences he was in jail and appeared in court. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li was not in regular attendance and on time at his worksite. As to the unauthorized absences, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li failed to provide documentation, regarding his illness, through the production of written medical notes from his treating physicians. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li failed to communicate his unauthorized absences to Principal Hayes or Dr. Fox and that he intentionally failed to communicate his unauthorized absences to them. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Li refused to request a leave of absence. The evidence demonstrates that he did not request a leave of absence because he was unsure as to whether such a request would benefit or harm him, especially when Dr. Fox informed him that she did not believe that he was ill, but at the same time, providing him with the request. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Mr. Li’s failure to request a leave of absence was reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending and dismissing Jorge Li from employment with it. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Janeen L. Richard, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Jorge Li 11458 Southwest 109th Road, Apt. X Miami, Florida 33176 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School District 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
